Missing grandaughter so much

I expect the parents are fully aware of their duty to their child. The OP’s view of things is understandable, but it’s subjective. She doesn’t know both sides of the story, she might not even fully know her son’s side of the story, and she is anxious for the future of her own relationship with her grandaughter, but I think she should try to let the child’s parents sort things out between them without trying to influence things.

I don’t think there’s anything much a grandparent can do in this situation, just be patient and hope that the parents will come to an arrangement that recognises the needs of the child, whatever that takes.

There may very well be a chat forum somewhere advising mum " he is a deadbeat dad who can't provide for his child" or all outside of unsults winding her up into anger...

I'd be telling them the exact same thing

You'd be telling them he is a deadbeat dad? I'd be taking the opportunity to suggest that for all her anger, her child has a right to love and want to see the Dad. I'd urge her to put her child first and remind her of the damage done by warring parents.

That's not my whole comment icanhandthemback

I would be telling them what I have been saying on this thread, that insulting and labelling dad and winding mum up into anger is wrong.

In order to resolve this a calm approach is needed. Insulting mum in any way (bt calling her cruel or a bad mum) could easily lead to a drawn out court battle

I keep trying to explain this

No, but it is a paragraph on its own which expresses something you say you'd do. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I asked you if that was what you'd say but you haven't answered that. That leads me to think you would call him a deadbeat Dad despite your protestations for calm because most people would immediately say that that wasn't what they meant at all. Please feel free to correct me if I have got the wrong impression. I'm happy to admit I made a mistake.

Even a "deadbeat" dad is still a dad and a child has a right to the opportunity to know him and work out their own opinion.

From what I can see, VioletSky's 'I'd be telling them the exact same thing' paragraph is referring to the paragraph AFTER, not the one before, i.e. she would tell them 'Anger will not help both parents fulfill their responsibilities and co-parent effectively and they both need to understand they have a financial and emotional duty to their child'.

icanhandthemback

No, but it is a paragraph on its own which expresses something you say you'd do. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I asked you if that was what you'd say but you haven't answered that. That leads me to think you would call him a deadbeat Dad despite your protestations for calm because most people would immediately say that that wasn't what they meant at all. Please feel free to correct me if I have got the wrong impression. I'm happy to admit I made a mistake.

You made a mistake

I would be telling them the same thing that anger and insults won't resolve the situation and both parents have financial and emotional responsibility to the child.

If you read back, I've said 2 or 3 times that mum hasn't made a good choice here. I have just added that many people do not make good choices under stress and branding her as cruel and a bad mother may make the situation much worse if passed on to the son.

The other context is that I have advised for Dad to take the official routes to visitation for which he will need employment.

So it's all there

Still no Yvonne.

Also it was a response to someone saying I was taking the mother's side, so the context is that I'm not, as I'd say the same thing.

I'm actually primarily on the child's side who needs parents who are able to co-parent effectively which does not work well when angry and insulting each other.

Also with the hope OP can help her son manage this and see her grandchild again.

choughdancer

From what I can see, VioletSky's 'I'd be telling them the exact same thing' paragraph is referring to the paragraph AFTER, not the one before, i.e. she would tell them 'Anger will not help both parents fulfill their responsibilities and co-parent effectively and they both need to understand they have a financial and emotional duty to their child'.

Yes it is, thank you

VioletSky

icanhandthemback

No, but it is a paragraph on its own which expresses something you say you'd do. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I asked you if that was what you'd say but you haven't answered that. That leads me to think you would call him a deadbeat Dad despite your protestations for calm because most people would immediately say that that wasn't what they meant at all. Please feel free to correct me if I have got the wrong impression. I'm happy to admit I made a mistake.

You made a mistake

I would be telling them the same thing that anger and insults won't resolve the situation and both parents have financial and emotional responsibility to the child.

If you read back, I've said 2 or 3 times that mum hasn't made a good choice here. I have just added that many people do not make good choices under stress and branding her as cruel and a bad mother may make the situation much worse if passed on to the son.

The other context is that I have advised for Dad to take the official routes to visitation for which he will need employment.

So it's all there

You made a mistake

I would be telling them the same thing that anger and insults won't resolve the situation and both parents have financial and emotional responsibility to the child.

If you read back, I've said 2 or 3 times that mum hasn't made a good choice here. I have just added that many people do not make good choices under stress and branding her as cruel and a bad mother may make the situation much worse if passed on to the son.

The other context is that I have advised for Dad to take the official routes to visitation for which he will need employment.

So it's all there

Then I wholeheartedly apologise but it could have been resolved a couple of posts again with answering a direct question. 😉

The father doesn't necessarily need employment to facilitate his rights to access, he just needs legal aid (if available) or help from his parents if they are happy to give assistance.

I know many fathers who are convinced that they will not be heard if they approach the courts but in most cases, they will be. The Courts are getting much better at recognising the excuses mothers make. Our DIL said our GS couldn't visit us because said child had become allergic to dogs so we jumped through the relevant hoops to facilitate this need. A couple of months later she bought a dog! You've got to laugh although at the time our son was absolutely desperate.

VioletSky

Also it was a response to someone saying I was taking the mother's side, so the context is that I'm not, as I'd say the same thing.

I'm actually primarily on the child's side who needs parents who are able to co-parent effectively which does not work well when angry and insulting each other.

Also with the hope OP can help her son manage this and see her grandchild again.

Could you explain to me how stopping a father seeing his child is a step towards co-parenting? Because all I can see it doing is stirring up resentment and creating division and distress.
An unemployed father is unlikely to have the financial resources, the time or the energy to go to court if he is actively seeking employment.
Once again the OP has to "help her son manage" . He isn't the one stopping access. He may be powerless to do anything.

Sorry, forgot to take out the quotes. 🤦🏼‍♀️

glorrianny

I've mentioned financial and emotional responsibility several times

Emotional responsibility would be not speaking badly of the other parent and promoting a good relationship between child and the other parent.

Which, with my hypothetical scenario I said I would be telling mum.

Mum isn't here though which is why I advised mediation as a first step and dad being calm in that process...

The next step after mediation is the court process which dad will need financial stability for to get good advice

Again, there is a child in this and they are the priority

icanhandthemback

You have apologised with a but....

I thought I had made it clear the first paragraph was hypothetical. Especially as "deadbeat dad" is an American term I must have heard on TV and a British term was not in my vocabulary.

I couldn't understand why you misread my comment and I didn't try not to answer a direct question, I simply needed to understand why you would be asking me when I thought the context of all my other comments would make my stance clear

Mediation actually costs money VS it isn't free.
Court action costs money.
The father is struggling to pay the amount the mother is asking for. How can either of those options be available to him?
As I said before if the mother is struggling financially and this is not about controlling the child and the father, having the child fed and accommodated by the GM would in fact help her manage.

What was clear to you, VS, obviously wasn't clear to me which is why I asked a straight forward question hoping for a straight forward reply. However, I have apologised and I share the same stance about putting the child first and not badmouthing the mother or father but looking for a resolution to the impasse. Whilst I can be open on here about my DIL's behaviour, I remained friendly and encouraged her to find a resolution. Although our parenting attitudes were very different, I always took care to praise her parenting where it was obviously working well. Nobody is all bad and she came with her own back history which influenced her behaviour. Sometimes as a single parent, you can't see the wood for the trees.

What government legal options does the UK have?

Even the US has court appointed lawyers

Glorianny

Mediation actually costs money VS it isn't free.
Court action costs money.
The father is struggling to pay the amount the mother is asking for. How can either of those options be available to him?
As I said before if the mother is struggling financially and this is not about controlling the child and the father, having the child fed and accommodated by the GM would in fact help her manage.

This is why I advised he needs employment

We can only hope mum doesn't let it get that far

icanhandthemback

What was clear to you, VS, obviously wasn't clear to me which is why I asked a straight forward question hoping for a straight forward reply. However, I have apologised and I share the same stance about putting the child first and not badmouthing the mother or father but looking for a resolution to the impasse. Whilst I can be open on here about my DIL's behaviour, I remained friendly and encouraged her to find a resolution. Although our parenting attitudes were very different, I always took care to praise her parenting where it was obviously working well. Nobody is all bad and she came with her own back history which influenced her behaviour. Sometimes as a single parent, you can't see the wood for the trees.

I understand and agree

A father using the financial reason not to have a custody order for his child is such a cop out

That puts the mother as the "evil one" for playing referee when in reality, it is the father not fighting for his own rights

No it's not necessarily a cop out Hithere. Legal aid to enable a parent to take their ex to court for a custody order has all but disappeared and some just do not have the money without it.

A blanket assumption that this is a father copping out puts the father as the "evil one" when in reality maybe it's the mother who is determined to prevent contact between the child and their father.

Even when there is a custody order, if it is being flouted then the only recourse is a return to court and there are no guarantees that that will improve the situation if a parent is determined to prevent access.

A parent shouldn't have to fight an unreasonable parent for their right to see their child, and their child's right to see them.

Exactly, Smileless2012.

However, it is the law that sets up what rights each parent has, not the father or mother alone

The assumption that mum wasn't dependent upon dad's financial support and isn't facing financial ruin bothers me. I'd assume mum had dad's contributions factored into her spending needs/plan. Dad needs to get a job, any job, even several partial jobs to fulfill his very real obligations, no matter mum's resources.